Quote: Breivik wrote a pretty comprehensive 1518 page manifesto called “A European Declaration of Independence.” On page 837 Breivik writes “Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike.” He called his Crusade Order and Anti-Jihadist order. So why didn’t he just attack a mosque? Why did he attack a government building? Well, on page 961 Breivik suggests deporting all Muslims from a number of countries- among them being North and South Israel. On page 1127 he goes on to state “A relationship is always reciprocal so we, the pro-multi ethnicity and pro-Israel/Jewish factions, do in fact expect future support from all non-Muslim right wing minority groups and indirect support from the Israeli right wing.” This is important because earlier in the year, Norway had stated that if the peace talks between Israel and Palestine to falter, that Norway will be among the first European nations to recognize Palestine. With the deadline to expire in about a little more than a month away what better time to orchestrate an attack of this magnitude than now?

As Breivik points out on page 1163 “So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.” He also states that “a future Europe will be protectors for the Middle Eastern Christian states and Israel…” A future Europe will not be able to protect Israel if one of the European states- in this case Norway recognizes a Palestinian state. Once the first domino drops then Breivik’s dream could shatter. The impact that Breivik’s attacks have on Norway’s decision to actually recognize the Palestinian state will be seen in a the coming weeks. If Norway takes a step back and withdraws from their decision of recognizing a Palestinian state then Breivik will be victorious and will become a hero for the neo-conservatives across the globe. More importantly, he will go down in folklore among the AIPAC circles.

The narrative has changed from "Muslim terrorist" to "right wing extremist."

yeah, there's the "them" and the "us"...

so we apply the appropriate term to their crime and method...

Not my intention, I guess I was just caught up in the label that the EU media had put on him (with full understanding that he did commit an act of terrorism). Please do not link anything I write to Atlas Shrugs, ever again, haha. It doesn't feel good.

Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:31 am

O2KSFF has a stalker.

Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1856
Location: Orange County

well he pleaded not guilty

Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:14 am

the meanCertified O.G.

Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6500
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio

mzehe916 wrote: Not my intention, I guess I was just caught up in the label that the EU media had put on him (with full understanding that he did commit an act of terrorism). Please do not link anything I write to Atlas Shrugs, ever again, haha. It doesn't feel good.

Haha, yeah. I thought your usage was a great example of how the use of the term had made its way into popular usage.

mzehe916 wrote: Not my intention, I guess I was just caught up in the label that the EU media had put on him (with full understanding that he did commit an act of terrorism). Please do not link anything I write to Atlas Shrugs, ever again, haha. It doesn't feel good.

Haha, yeah. I thought your usage was a great example of how the use of the term had made its way into popular usage.

That was pretty rough to read. And I thought the comment section on youtube was bad. My favorite part was clicking on the names of some of those assholes to see other comments they made and one person was in denial it may not be a muslim:

"I've not seen it confirmed that the person was blonde, only that they've arrested someone.

Even if its true, I would point out that: 1) there are plenty of blonde-haired blue-eyed muslims around (a few might even be Norwegian converts--we've captured a few in Iraq and Afghanistan); and 2) the guy was wearing a disguise; blonde hair coloring is as easily available in Norway as it is anywhere else."

mzehe916 wrote: Not my intention, I guess I was just caught up in the label that the EU media had put on him (with full understanding that he did commit an act of terrorism). Please do not link anything I write to Atlas Shrugs, ever again, haha. It doesn't feel good.

Haha, yeah. I thought your usage was a great example of how the use of the term had made its way into popular usage.

What? Big Peace? Except for maybe three comments out of all of those I didn't get a sense of peace at all. I can only imagine what stormfront's thread was like. Four pages of anti-islamic babel and how could they kill the white skinned, blue-eyed people of Norway then suddenly 6 pages of praise for their white skinned, blue-eyed example of how to revolt against the government. I'm curious now. I'm gonna hold my breath and dive into that shit pool.

Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:37 am

the meanCertified O.G.

Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6500
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio

Stormfront focused on the shooter's support for the Jews.

Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:50 am

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption

glenn beck thinks you're not allowed criticize others for homophobia and chauvinism if you're muslim, apparently because all muslims are homophobes and chauvinists:

People are still blaming Islam for this. Apparently this nice man would have never committed such terror attacks if it wasn't for those "evil Muslims".

Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:22 am

O2KSFF has a stalker.

Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1856
Location: Orange County

X the Outsider wrote: People are still blaming Islam for this. Apparently this nice man would have never committed such terror attacks if it wasn't for those "evil Muslims".

Yea i read the reason was the high arab immigration and if norway had curbed the immigration this wouldn't have happened.

Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:22 pm

Jesse

Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6165
Location: privileged homeless

It's tantamount to the argument "Well, look how Oslo was DRESSED. What did it expect?"

Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:17 pm

Jesse Custer

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 1258
Location: London

Charlie Brooker has weighed in with his thoughts -

Quote: I went to bed in a terrible world and awoke inside a worse one. At the time of writing, details of the Norwegian atrocity are still emerging, although the identity of the perpetrator has now been confirmed and his motivation seems increasingly clear: a far-right anti-Muslim extremist who despised the ruling party.

Presumably he wanted to make a name for himself, which is why I won't identify him. His name deserves to be forgotten. Discarded. Deleted. Labels like "madman", "monster", or "maniac" won't do, either. There's a perverse glorification in terms like that. If the media's going to call him anything, it should call him pathetic; a nothing.

On Friday night's news, they were calling him something else. He was a suspected terror cell with probable links to al-Qaida. Countless security experts queued up to tell me so. This has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida attack, they said. Watching at home, my gut feeling was that that didn't add up. Why Norway? And why was it aimed so specifically at one political party? But hey, they're the experts. They're sitting there behind a caption with the word "EXPERT" on it. Every few minutes the anchor would ask, "What kind of picture is emerging?" or "What sense are you getting of who might be responsible?" and every few minutes they explained this was "almost certainly" the work of a highly-organised Islamist cell.

In the aftermath of the initial bombing, they proceeded to wrestle with the one key question: why do Muslims hate Norway? Luckily, the experts were on hand to expertly share their expert solutions to plug this apparent plot hole in the ongoing news narrative.

Why do Muslims hate Norway? There had to be a reason.

Norway was targeted because of its role in Afghanistan. Norway was targeted because Norwegian authorities had recently charged an extremist Muslim cleric. Norway was targeted because one of its newspapers had reprinted the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Norway was targeted because, compared to the US and UK, it is a "soft target" – in other words, they targeted it because no one expected them to.

When it became apparent that a shooting was under way on Utoya island, the security experts upgraded their appraisal. This was no longer a Bali-style al-Qaida bombing, but a Mumbai-style al-Qaida massacre. On and on went the conjecture, on television, and in online newspapers, including this one. Meanwhile, on Twitter, word was quickly spreading that, according to eyewitnesses, the shooter on the island was a blond man who spoke Norwegian. At this point I decided my initial gut reservations about al-Qaida had probably been well founded. But who was I to contradict the security experts? A blond Norwegian gunman doesn't fit the traditional profile, they said, so maybe we'll need to reassess . . . but let's not forget that al-Qaida have been making efforts to actively recruit "native" extremists: white folk who don't arouse suspicion. So it's probably still the Muslims.

Soon, the front page of Saturday's Sun was rolling off the presses. "Al-Qaeda" Massacre: NORWAY'S 9/11 – the weasel quotes around the phrase "Al Qaeda" deemed sufficient to protect the paper from charges of jumping to conclusions.

By the time I went to bed, it had become clear to anyone within glancing distance of the internet that this had more in common with the 1995 Oklahoma bombing or the 1999 London nail-bombing campaign than the more recent horrors of al-Qaida.

While I slept, the bodycount continued to rise, reaching catastrophic proportions by the morning. The next morning I switched on the news and the al-Qaida talk had been largely dispensed with, and the pundits were now experts on far-right extremism, as though they'd been on a course and qualified for a diploma overnight.

Some remained scarily defiant in the face of the new unfolding reality. On Saturday morning I saw a Fox News anchor tell former US diplomat John Bolton that Norwegian police were saying this appeared to be an Oklahoma-style attack, then ask him how that squared with his earlier assessment that al-Qaida were involved. He was sceptical. It was still too early to leap to conclusions, he said. We should wait for all the facts before rushing to judgment. In other words: assume it's the Muslims until it starts to look like it isn't – at which point, continue to assume it's them anyway.

If anyone reading this runs a news channel, please, don't clog the airwaves with fact-free conjecture unless you're going to replace the word "expert" with "guesser" and the word "speculate" with "guess", so it'll be absolutely clear that when the anchor asks the expert to speculate, they're actually just asking a guesser to guess. Also, choose better guessers. Your guessers were terrible, like toddlers hypothesising how a helicopter works. I don't know anything about international terrorism, but even I outguessed them.

As more information regarding the identity of the terrorist responsible for the massacre comes to light, articles attempting to explain his motives are starting to appear online. And beneath them are comments from readers, largely expressing outrage and horror. But there are a disturbing number that start, "What this lunatic did was awful, but . . ."

These "but" commenters then go on to discuss immigration, often with reference to a shaky Muslim-baiting story they've half-remembered from the press. So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren't Muslim, they've managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they've been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by "security experts" quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about "Muslim-only loos" or local councils "banning Christmas".

We're in a frightening place. Guesswork won't lead us to safety.

Also Morrissey has used this as an opportunity to be his usual dickhead self.. can't be bothered to paste his remarks; you can look them up if you want.

Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:42 am

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption